San Francisco City Hall, lately the setting for thousands of jubilant wedding days for gay couples, last week changed to the site of crying couples comforting one another as they were again denied marriage licenses due to a California Supreme Court order. A New York mayor was threatened with criminal charges after he performed gay marriages, and two ministers actually have been charged. A few weeks ago George Bush was on television saying something about constitutional amendments and activist judges.

Let's not talk about who's right and who's wrong. We can argue loudly about that at a coffee shop later in a blatant violation of social manners. Today let's take a step back and take a closer look at all the legal wrangling going on. Why? First of all, because this is the biggest constitutional issue since abortion, maybe even segregation. Second, even more so than usual, the winners will be determined by a legal chess game, political organizations, timing and, ultimately, the will of voters. If you want to know who'll come out on top, you might have to read some legal briefs. Or let me read them for you.

First we'll go state by state for a quick overview of where things stand legally in some of the biggest flashpoints:

AT THE MOMENT

According to Lamda Legal, a gay-rights legal organization, 38 states now have state laws banning gay marriage, either passed by legislators or ballot initiative. Only one state, Vermont, allows civil unions. The other 11 states do not have specific statutory provisions: Oregon, New Mexico, Wyoming, Wisconsin, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut and Rhode Island. This of course does not mean gay marriage is legal in those states -- in some cases courts and in other cases attorneys general have ruled that gay marriage is not permitted by state law. For example, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has pointed out that the state's Domestic Relations Law includes references to "husband and wife" and "bride and groom."

But the status quo is SO yesterday. Very few states have not been touched by the incredible developments of the last few months, and the situation in many states is very fluid. Here's details a few of the big flashpoints:

FLASHPOINT 1: Massachusetts

Massachusetts is the only state in this current round of turmoil that we can say with some assurance will allow gay marriage or civil unions soon -- at least temporarily.

In November, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the Massachusetts constitution "forbids the creation of second-class citizens," and ruled that the state legislature must approve gay marriages -- not just civil unions -- within 6 months. Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and many state legislators in both parties immediately went to work on a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The legislature has, indeed, approved an amendment on its way that would not allow gay marriage, but would allow civil unions. Many of Massachusetts' state officials and presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry have said they don't want gay marriage to be legal, preferring instead civil unions.

However, in Massachusetts, constitutional amendments must be approved by the state legislature in two successive sessions, and each session lasts two years. So the amendment would have to be passed in the next session, and then approved by voters. At the earliest, that would be in 2006, and by that time, in theory, there would have been many gay marriages in the state. Many analysts have predicted that it would be difficult to retroactively do away with these marriages, or that it would be at least politically difficult to do so.

FLASHPOINT 2: New York

On Feb. 27, Jason West, the mayor of New Paltz, began solemnizing same-sex marriages. This activity differed from what was going on in San Francisco because the City Clerk in New Paltz refused to issue licenses. The mayor instead said he was acting within his right as mayor to solemnize marriages, and married 25 couples. The Ulster County Attorney disagreed, charging West with 19 criminal counts of solemnizing marriages without a license -- a misdemeanor.

West has stopped performing ceremonies after meeting with the state Attorney General, who issued a legal opinion stating that New York law does not allow the marriages. A judge also issued an injunction against West, which the mayor has said he will obey. After West stopped solemnizing marriages, two Unitarian ministers stepped in and performed more ceremonies.

Those two ministers, more than a little surprisingly, have also landed in legal trouble. The Associated Press reported Tuesday that "Kay Greenleaf and Dawn Sangrey were charged with criminal offenses Monday for marrying 13 gay couples."

The AP reported that Ulster County District Attorney Donald Williams said that New York law does not differentiate between public officials and private citizens in prohibiting the solemnization of marriages without a license.

This development is odd, since Unitarian ministers and clergy in several other denominations have performed religious marriage or commitment services for years without complaint from authorities. The case does have an interesting caveat: After the ministers' ceremonies, they issued affidavits describing the proceedings. One minister, according to AP, says she "considers the ceremonies civil."

Not the best (or coherent) argument I've heard in awhile. I'll be shocked if that one goes to trial, and even if it does, the penalty is a fine of a few hundred dollars. I don't think they'll have too much trouble finding people to help them pay it.

Anyway, the New York Attorney General, a same-sex marriage supporter, also stated in his ruling that he believed the issue raised serious constitutional questions, meaning he thinks the state Supreme Court should rule on the issue. Spitzer especially cited the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment (the Equal Protection Clause) and last year's Supreme Court ruling Lawrence v. Texas, which stated, in part, that disadvantaging homosexuality is not an acceptable government interest.

The Attorney General's opinion also noted that in New York, same-sex unions lawfully obtained in other states should be recognized in New York (one judge has already ruled that this is case). He also noted that while West may be in legal trouble, state law specifically does not punish the couple involved. In fact, as long as the couple is of legal age, the marriages are still legally recognized. This means that if the Supreme Court did rule that gay marriage should be legal, in theory the marriages already performed would stand.

FLASHPOINT 3: California

A week ago (March 11), the California Supreme Court ordered the city and county of San Francisco, and specifically the City Clerk, to cease performing same-sex marriages until the court rules within 90 days after hearing arguments in several cases in May or June.

The justices' orders do not at all deal with the constitutionality of California's bans on same sex marriage. So far, the justices have only asked that the city explain why it believes it can perform marriages explicitly prohibited by California law. In fact the justices made a point to mention and even seemed to invite a "substantive constitutional challenge" to the state's family law. To be clear, this does not mean the court is hinting it supports gay marriage. It is, however, hinting strongly that it believes now is the time to settle the constitutional issue.

This is not as parochial as it might seem. Often courts will refuse to hear controversial cases specifically because they don't believe the issue is yet "ripe." When courts rule on a constitutional issue, they only want to rule once, if possible, and this means they are looking for a case that deals explicitly with the core legal controversy. The justices seem to be saying that this case raises enough of a valid constitutional question to warrant a hearing.

It's hard to say if this ruling was a blow to gay marriage advocates or not. On the one hand, the wedding are at least for now stopped. Really, this should not surprise anyone. To me, and probably even to San Francisco city officials, it was surprising it took this long for a court to order a halt to activity by city officials that was clearly outside the law -- there was no ambiguity there. And there was absolutely no chance that the court would immediately rule California's Proposition 22 unconstitutional, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, when faced with a rogue city government. On the other hand, that was never the point. Gay marriage supporters have gotten the issue front-and-center, and within the next year or so the court is going to rule one way or the other.

Not that it will be over quickly. No matter what happens in the California Supreme Court, the order will be appealed, and the U.S. Supreme Court will have to decide whether to take the case. That's not a foregone conclusion, but this issue has expanded into a social controversy at critical mass. I'd like to see the Supreme Court try to run from this one.

FLASHPOINT 4: Oregon

On March 3, Multnomah County (think Portland) announced that it, too, would start issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Multnomah's County Attorney wrote in a legal opinion to the county that since Oregon's constitution forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, local authorities could not discriminate in giving marriage licenses.

Benton County also voted to issue same-sex marriage licenses, and will begin doing so next week. On March 12, the Oregon Attorney General issued a legal opinion that stated while he viewed the actions of the counties as illegal because they were flouting state law, he found it likely that the Oregon Supreme Court would rule that denying gay marriage was unconstitutional if a case came up.

FLASHPOINT 5: The Big Dance

After the states have taken their shots at this question, or, more probably, even before most states have dealt with the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court will get involved. Judging by the logic in the Lawrence v. Texas decision, any gay marriage case would be argued along the lines of the 14th Amendment, on the same turf as abortion. The court's ruling will turn on two well-known passages: the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Chances are you've probably heard those terms, but let's take a quick look. They're both contained in the same line of the amendment (extra points if you can spot them!):

"(N)or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This here, people, is the single most important and controversial piece of the Constitution. We could go on for weeks and weeks about it. But let's keep our attention on gay marriage.

There are a lot of variations in how courts have come to their conclusions, but the simplest way to say it is this: "Don't make laws that discriminate against a group of people because they happen to be black, Jewish or a woman."

You'll notice that sexual orientation isn't on that list. My guess is that in two years or less it will be, if it isn't sort of already. In two cases, the aforementioned Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans (1996), the Court has said that disadvantaging homosexuals cannot be the sole reason for creating a law.

Gay marriage, however, is tougher to predict. Justice Antonin Scalia, a favorite whipping boy of liberals, actually gave a pretty strong hint that as long as Lawrence isn't overturned, there's nothing stopping gay marriage. To be sure, he doesn't think that's the greatest idea in the world (he was making a broader point that Lawrence and Roe v. Wade both rest on judicial theory that has some holes). But he's right. Unless opponents can come up with a good explanation for why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, the Court would probably rule 5-4 or 6-3 in favor of allowing gay marriage. By the way, those "good explanations" could not include because of the historical view that homosexuality is wrong, because marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman and because gay couples cannot produce offspring. If you don't believe me, read the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas and the New York attorney general's brief on the subject.

But now a big "hold on there, tiger" is in order for yours truly. This is not to say that this IS what will happen. This is what would happen if the Court followed its latest precedent. Which is what it's supposed to do, unless it explicitly wants to overturn that previous ruling. But I hesitate because that's not always how the court works. At times, the court's legal doctrine can be summarized as "enough is enough." This is pretty much what happened in the infamous Bush v Gore case (though Bush still would have won the election), for example. All the justices have to do is look at a poll or two. The fact of the matter is that a fairly large majority of Americans don't want gay marriage. And there's not likely to be a ton of movement in those positions just because the Court says it should be so. It's pretty tough to argue away the deeply held religious convictions of many, many citizens. In short, the Court might decide that gay marriage is going too far "just because." This isn't what the court's opinion will say, but the writing would be on the wall.

But no matter what happens in each state and in the Supreme Court, the American people will probably have the final say. Though a U.S. constitutional amendment probably won't pass Congress this session, if gay rights advocates do score some victories Congress will almost certainly approve an amendment. A fairly solid majority of Americans still oppose gay marriage, and that's a lot of constituents for any senator to ignore. The only real question in my mind is if the public will decide they actually hate the idea of gay marriage enough to vote for an amendment. I tend to think they don't. But if an amendment did get passed, the issue would more or less be settled. It's hard to pass an amendment, but even harder to repeal one.